Oh.

I thought this was either Gaddafi or Charlie Sheen.

Never mind ...

Stupid people ruin everything.

Goldy, this makes the case that if only there had been one more gun in the hands of victim Christopher Johnson two people might be dead right now!

10 years ago, when I engaged in pointless online arguments with 2nd amernded supporters. It was said that if we ban all guns, then only criminals will posses and use them.

And while very few people are pushing for a total ban on guns, currently as it stands now, there appears to be more and more news articles involving legal gun owners, using their guns for the purpose of murder or assault. When you read a report about some guy or gal shooting their husband, wife, bf, gf, daughter, son, etc. If the news report includes a laundry list of charges the suspect faces, but the charge of illegal firearms possession is absent, then chances are thats another would be card carrying NRA member, who will asert his/her right to own a gun, but ultimately use it to assault others with it.

Now I dont read up on every murder charge or accidental death thats reported in the country, but locally, it feels like the lawful gun owners are commiting more crimes of murder than the criminal thugs themselves. I could be wrong, but its an odd feeling of irony when gun owners use their guns to take the lives of people close to them. You dont see many reports of someone with a consealed weapons permit, preventing the loss of life at a McDonalds, bank, grocery store, night club, etc. Either they dont really happen that often or are not being reported.

Gun lovers can give you all the "I heard it from this guy" stories they want: Statistics prove that the States with the lowest handgun ownership have the lowest handgun homicides.

Canada would be a good example of the fallacy of the "only criminals will have guns" argument: It's almost impossible to acquire a handgun here, much less transport it, and while I'm sure there are illegal guns being used by criminals, we still have much lower homicide by handgun rates than you guys do.

And because really, what better thread to piss people off, has anyone looked at level of education vs. handgun ownership?

Take a deep breath and remember this nearly the EXACT same argument the right uses against abortion.

Gun ownership is upheld by the constitution. Until you have enough people to make a change to it, this is all just rhetoric, pissing in the wind, you can ask as many rhetorical questions as you like till your blue in the face.

Goldy, the answer of course is we don't know. But lets assume he had no access to a gun. He could have just as easily used a knife, or baseball bat, or other instrument.

So, your question is speculative. I get that it's rhetorical as you already know the answer. But it doesn't prove your point.

@Kinison, there are plenty of reports of people protecting themselves with guns. You just ain't looking in the right place. But I think the battle of statistics is a fools game. For every article like this, gun supporters will show their evidence.

All I know is that the right to bear arms are protected under the Constitution. Must have been a reason for that. But good luck in trying to persuade a 2/3 majority of the states that prohibition on guns is the answer.

@6, what, exactly, is your point? Rhetorical questions like this are one of the ways that you amass enough people to make a difference. Will these questions in and of themselves change the gun law? No. But if you continue to ask the questions, continue to point out the studies and trends reporting the link between gun availability and violence, you begin to change minds; changing minds eventually (slowly, obliquely) leads to changing laws.

This is the way these things progress, regardless of whether you're talking about guns, abortions, civil rights, or anything else. These sorts of articles are part of the whole process, and saying that it's futile is just willfully defeatist.

Your subject made me think it was a Jon LaJoie reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1B…

Me, I'd be fine with only outlaws having guns. It'll make them that much easier to differentiate from the general citizenry, and it'll make it easier to lock 'em up.

@8: "He could have just as easily used a knife, or baseball bat, or other instrument."?

Not AS EASILY. Typically, it's much harder to kill someone with a knife or a club than a handgun. Just point and shoot, versus stab or bludgeon a screaming victim who's fighting back and bleeding all over you. That's why gang bangers use guns for drive-bys, that's why Amoklauf maniacs use guns to shoot strangers en masse, and that's why gun owners legally carry guns and not baseball bats in holsters. It is MUCH EASIER.

3Oh!3 sicken me.

Yeah, after all, the killer could have used, oh I don't know, lawn furniture to kill his ex.

Every household has a kitchen drawer with knives in it: and yet, the odds are enormous that you'll die by the hand of a family member or ex-member, if you live in a state with lax gun control laws.

In fact, you're more likely to die by gunfire, even if there are no gun nuts in your family, if you live in a state with lax gun control laws.

Somehow all those knives in every kitchen drawer in the United States don't pose the threat that guns in your state do.

Mortality Statistics > Contact with knife, sword or dagger (most recent) by country United States: 9 deaths (compiled for the year 2004)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_co…

Even excluding butter knives, every household in the United States has at least one knife (if not more!) sharp enough to kill in the kitchen.

And yet:

In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States - over 80 deaths every day.
In 2000, 75,685 people (27/100,000) suffered non-fatal firearm gunshot injuries.
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.…

Because, of course, the arguments of the gun nut lobby are false -- they'll bleat any lie to hang onto their penis substitute.

Were a sad country with an absurd fetish for a document written more than 200 years ago by a bunch of limeys with wigs.

The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms to a well-regulated militia.

So tell me, gun nuts, which state militia called you up?

How the hell do criminals get their guns? Every gun was at one time a legal gun, right? There aren't very many illegal gun manufacturers, are there? Are they all stolen? How did they get stolen? If you own a gun and it gets stolen why isn't the owner held accountable to some degree? If you have a gun in a gun safe or some other secure place and it get stolen, it seems the gun owner did his or her due diligence in protecting his potentially dangerous in the wrong hand property. But if it was stolen out of a car or drawer, or some such thing and the owner tok no steps to ensure that the gun didn't get stolen then there should be some sort of penalty. Guns are not like other types of property. It seems there should be some responsibility placed on gun owners.

Pardon my apparently inordinately crappy editing skills.

@10: ha ha awesome Joe -- I knew I recognized that line from somewhere!

Canuck @5: Just under that motto on his myspace page it says:

Books
What the fuck is a book?

So sad.

The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms to a well-regulated militia.

Not according to District of Columbia v. Heller. Blame the activist court.

No rational person believes that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own handguns. There are no rational persons on the Supreme Court today. Certainly none of the saintly Founding Fathers would have been pleased by today's wide-open gun trade.

But the legal battle is lost. We are a gun-crazed country, and always will be. It doesn't matter how many people die, or how many families are destroyed. We must maintain our ridiculous fantasies at all costs. Gun owners are damaged people who believe stupid things that will get them and their loved ones killed for stupid reasons. That's the American Way.

Gun owners: fuck you. Fuck you all. Fuck you hard. Fuck you forever.

I'm not going to bother with the 2nd Amendment arguments, a case can be made either way and while I don't really buy into "original intent," the Supreme Court rulings agree with my personal beliefs (for now at least).

There is no denying that guns are dangerous. Any responsible gun owner admits this from the start and treats them that way at all times. Sadly there are plenty of stupid and irresponsible gun owners out there. We need to focus on root causes of violence (and stop counting misleading suicide statistics with murders) and harm reduction, sound like dealing with any other familiar problem, sloggers?

Treating guns as a culture war issue (like pro-life people treat abortion) is counter-productive to the overall goal of reducing the social costs. It is possible to own a gun and not be a Teabagger, not be a Jesus freak, and not be a "rural dwelling" individual. Throwing around lame penis insults only makes you look juvenile.

I went to a good college, I'm a member of the ACLU, I support legal pot, abortion, and gay marriage, I marched against the Iraq war, I voted for Obama. And I own a gun. Deal with it.

When I take my liberal (like me) friends out shooting that haven't really handled a gun before, they have a good time and learn quite a bit. Actually having experience with something in a safe and responsible setting can allow for a more nuanced understanding of an issue rather than emotional blindness (ewww, a gay guy hit on me once, gays are gross!).

I suppose it's a lost cause on slog anyway. I was going to end this with a friendly comment to Fnarf, who automatically hates me, but I figured I'd take the more mature path.

So, Goldy, what do you think should be done? Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Ban only certain guns? Run tougher background checks? Make stricter penalties for owning guns illegally? What?

In fact, what is anyone suggesting here? Or is this just a complaint forum?

@24, I would be for stricter background checks. You can turn the wingnuts old argument "if you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't have to worry about it" against them. Oh, and legalize drugs. I always gotta throw that in there.

I'm curious how many people that talk about "stricter background checks" know what is actually involved in a background check. Here are the things that would disqualify you from purchasing a gun under current law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_In…

* Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
* Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
* Is a fugitive from justice
* Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
* Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
* Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
* Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
* Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
* Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
* Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

It's a pretty comprehensive list. The only thing I can think of to add is some mental health issues, which were highly relevant factors in the Virginia Tech and Giffords shootings. To be honest I'm not sure what the current laws are regarding mental health, but it's not really something that can easily be checked while still following due process requirements. I would be in favor of steps to keep guns from those that have been medically diagnosed with certain mental issues, but it would have to be very carefully written to avoid either needlessly prohibiting anyone with a minor and possibly temporary issue from exercising legal rights, or being used as an excuse to deny that right to people arbitrarily.

@ 24, I believe that, for Goldy, it's a complaint forum. He'd like all guns banned or else severely restricted - not that he's ever said what he actually believes, so we have to draw our conclusions for the tone of these posts.

Not that we can't have a rational discussion. From a pragmatic perspective, Fnarf is right about the US being a gun culture, although I suspect that this goes back centuries, and isn't a recent development. That means that few gun laws are likely to be embraced by the people. The automatic weapons ban was, and ought to be reinstated. (I hear that the definition of "automatic weapon" was kind of vague in the old version, and maybe that ought to be tightened up, but I'm comfortable with a vague definition. There were a lot fewer crimes committed with them when that was in effect.)

I'm good with mandatory waiting periods for all gun purchases, and mandatory background checks, too. No gun show loopholes. Of course, that won't help things like private sales - not sure what solution we can offer there.

Basically, the approach has to have a reduction, and not an elimination, of gun crime as its goal. There are too many guns in the country for elimination to ever be achieved. And since I'm guessing many of these perpetrators could have used anger management counseling and have probably exhibited losses of control in the past, health care ought to pay for such counseling.

I'm kind of rambling here, so I'll stop, but maybe we can have a real discussion about what's to be done rather than wish for guns to just disappear.

@7: http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l8e3y4…
http://globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-cont…

@23... If I ever make it up that way, we are going to the range, and bring your liberal friends, I do so enjoy good discussions and gunfire.

@29 here's a good website to look at gun crime data and other information regarding the assault weapons ban. There is some surprising information in it, fully cited and very well done. You can actually see where the information come from and double-check to make sure they aren't blowing smoke up your ass. Www.gunfacts.info. You'd be surprised at how little the ban did for reducing crime. And you would be surprised at how much firearms do to deter it, regardless of what some people like to think. And it also has a few nice quotes from one of the leading researchers on gun crime, a person whose work judibrown has cited, and what he thinks of carrying a gun.

And just remember why the second amendment was put into place to begin with. If you don't know, read the declaration of independence, there's a reason why every amendment in the bill of rights exists.

Once again, I am enjoying the discussion, and I thank Goldy for posting things like this. Differing opinions and open debate in an amicable manner of topics that matter is part of the American way.

@24,

What I'm suggesting is that guns don't make us safer. I make this suggestion in the hope of educating the public, so that fewer people put themselves and their families at risk by keeping guns—particularly handguns—in the house.

I do think there can and should be additional regulation of gun purchases and ownership, but I'm a political pragmatist, and don't see much opportunity in the foreseeable future to achieve significant reforms via legislation. So education is our best shot at changing behavior.

@Goldy- what if through the education process, gun crimes are reduced and gun ownership goes up? Would you be opposed to that?

@32 That all sounds nice and reasonable, but is in some contrast to your troll-tastic original post. I don't see anything about education (which I also support).

@29 "The automatic weapons ban was, and ought to be reinstated."

I'm curious what you are referring to. If you are referring to the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, it had nothing to do with automatic weapons, and banned guns primarily on cosmetic features like what kind of grip they had or if they had a bayonet lug (when is the last time anyone got bayonetted?) The term "assault weapon" has no real meaning and was created as a scare term to help get the law passed, which @31 points out had no meaningful effect on crime.

Fully automatic guns actually are legal if federally registered, but cost $10,000+ and a major process by the BATFE. They are owned by collectors and to my knowledge have never been used in a crime.

I still feel that guns aren't really the problem.

Yes, I hate that there's so much gun crime and violence. I also think that, yes, if all guns were made illegal, gun violence would decrease.... but it woudn't address the real problem.

Why does the U.S. have so many gun problems while other countries with similar populations or similar numbers of guns or similar whatever NOT have those problems?

It's a sad and unfortunate fact that blacks are the perpetrators and victims of gun violence at a far higher rate than any other group. Is this because they're inherently a more violent people? No, of course not. So why does it happen? Could it be that this country treats people in lower social and economic groups like garbage? Tells them that if they want to get ahead, they have to do it themselves... no one's gonna help them? Tells them that if they're in poverty, or homeless, or hungry, it's because they're lazy and don't try hard enough?

When people are told again and again how worthless they are if they aren't successful, well... when you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose, right?

I'm sort of rambling here, but it just strikes me as a pointless argument about whether such-and-such a gun should or shouldn't be legal, when we've got a population who are suffering and helpless and don't know what else to do. And getting an honest meal and place to sleep at night becomes more difficult than simply getting a gun and forcefully taking a meal and place to sleep away from someone else.

Our country has gun problems, sure, but it has other problems that are far more dire.

Make sense. If either you or your assailant don't have access to a firearm then you're not bloody likely to get shot are you. Wow...access to firearms leads to shootings. Who would have thought? I'll bet access to razor blades is the number one risk factor in wrist slashings. Seriously. How often do you find that people who slashed their wrists with razors had access to razors? Cause and effect man.

KNIVES!

@31

Your guns are such a great deterrent in Texas, that you have a 50% higher robbery with firearm rate than California according to the FBI. So exactly how are guns in Texas deterring crime??

People should look at the girl's page who is playing a victim. You can't tell me she is anything close to an exceptional citizen! In how many of those pictures that aren't private is she sober? My guess... none! high on life my ass! Sounds to me like she was off her bi-polar meds. And with that said, look at the comments on this article. I bet her, her family, or the victim's family wrote this and had a skewed view, while making up bullshit. It's obvious, they are the one's taking this personal.

Here's the link to the "poor girl's page."

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1…

She should be locked up as well!